Naruto Fanon Wiki talk:The Rules and Guidelines for Narutofanon
Wait....I thought the large-scale version of Shinra Tensei shortened life-span. Achrones150 21:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) It does. What are you refferring to? And if you have anything to add, please do so. --Cold hard steel 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The ranks (e.g. S-Class, A-Class) should each have their own descriptions as to prevent confusion. I'm currently working on it, but maybe you guys could help out? Achrones150 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm... sounds promising. Could you go into more detail? I mean, this is the talk page of the reformation for the site. I want as many good things as possible. --Cold hard steel 21:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) The page is here: Jutsu Ranks Most S-Class jutsu can take a heavy toll on the user. For example, the three powerful Mangekyo Sharingan techniques that Itachi uses (Amaterasu, Tsukuyomi, and Susan'o) can cause a heavy amount of chakra drain, and could kill him if used constantly. However, techniques like the Clone Technique do not have significant side-effects, although its use in battle can be considered limited. As the rank goes up, the more powerful the jutsu is and the heavier the toll is on the user. Achrones150 21:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Oh, so you're saying that a jutsu's rank should be in accordance with it's power and side-effects? That might not be a bad thing to add. Put the link on the page under the entry, after I re-word it. --Cold hard steel 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Exactly. Achrones150 22:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Dubtiger's Assessment of the Current Rules and Guidelines In regards to limiting the power of characters, it can be a little hectic to go through the profile of every character that pops up and force them to downgrade the power of their character(s) if deemed too extreme. Plus, there will always be that one person who would defend his or her article and try to put the administration in bad light. From my experience with other fanon wikis, the issue was not of concern, but then again, they were not anime-based wikis struggling to get on their feet and start running. I said this a couple times before (my editing screw ups might have caused some of them to disappear: haven't done administrating work in a long time), but I will reiterate it here: we need to get a Featured Article system set up. It's hard to force people to abide by the rules, but people like to shoot for glory. Have a new featured article be shown every week or something (length can be determined if agreed upon) and set rules and regulations that people must follow in order to become a featured article. From my standpoint, this would dilute the population of overpowered characters, as people would be striving to follow those guidelines and get a shot at producing a future featured article. The same goes for techniques: featured articles can be anything, including (but not limited to) jutsu, characters, villages, wars, items. To be quite honest, I'm not a fan of favoring people who have been around for a long time. There are people who have true potential to produce extraordinary pieces of work that would be limited because they simply have not been on the wiki for as long as others. Granted, new people rarely win awards or produce masterpieces, but restraint and limitations on creativity are things that I get bothered by. I envisioned Naruto Fanon to be a showcase of creativity and professionalism in anime, though I understand and respect the decisions made by the current administration. I also want to thank you for coping with the craziness that has brought Naruto Fanon into the ditches and keeping this whole thing running since my leave in August of 2008. --Dubtiger 02:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm... You just basically shot down my whole plan, but I guess that it basically depended on being a dictator until all of this is over. In order for this to work, people would have to abide by the rules to the word, no exceptions. That's what the threats of restriction and banning are for. I should work on the loop-holes, but I also asked you to review the document. I will take these words into account and put them into the document. And please, help whenever you can, and remember that we're kind of in a miniature version of the Great Depression, and we're trying to be like FDR. --Cold hard steel 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC) :If the administration agrees with you more than me, I'll let it slip. Being the founder of the wiki doesn't mean all that much: it just means that I have membership in the administration longer than the rest of the team. I cannot say I'm unbiased in my statements, but I try to be as fair as possible to the community. It is the community that keeps this fanon alive, and part of the reason why I stopped coming here was because I was having so much trouble figuring out how to produce the amount of activity we are seeing today. I'd hate to see the activity drop like a stone in the water because of the steps needed to cut out a certain species of articles. --Dubtiger 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Featured Articles We can't just jump right into it: everyone would just be submitting their stuff for consideration, without an actual set of guidelines that it has to adhere to. This would lead to accusations of favoritism and other nuisances that is completely unneeded. Discuss what set of guidelines that the featured articles MUST follow in order to be considered in the first place, as well as a system for selecting featured articles. --Dubtiger (Talk) 15:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't like systems. They screw up. Anyway, I have one. I'm trying to build all of this up so when we make the switch, everybody doesn't have to drop everything and stop their production of articles so they can reformat everything. That would be annoying, wouldn't it? And what would we do for the "MUST" part? We can't force anybody. That would be mean. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are more ways than one to do this, and trying all of them out isn't a bad idea, but we must assume that we all want the better good of the site, and that most (and this means everybody concerned in the matters that got us in this mess) will cooperate. No one here is evil. --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC) :They don't have to follow the rules of the FA, but that would mean that they are not elligible for nomination. There are people who work hard on their articles, and there are people who just put "blah" on a page and calls it an article. It's not fair to the people who take the time to produce an article and get the article nominated when someone can just write up a load of crap and call it an article, and get it nominated. Again, it's not required to follow FA guidelines, but not following them would deny the ability of that article to be nominated. This is a showcase of worthy articles, not a boasting page. :Give me three wikis that screw up with an FA system that has requirements to it, please. --Lavi I am Dubtiger (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Now, I totally agree to this. But what we need to do is control the amount of crap that's showing up on the site. It's ruining our reputation and it's also getting annoying. I like the FA system idea, but how would that solve our godmodding and trash content problem? --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :Set a Manual of Style, which I will be describing below. --Lavi I am Dubtiger (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Manual of Style There needs to be some sort of Manual of Style to the articles. It is there everywhere else to set a method of organizing information. If we have a standard way of organizing our information, it would be much easier to find information that one would want about that page. On top of that, we also need to have a standardized way of displaying information in infoboxes. We don't have a template for infoboxes, so there also needs to be some sort of standardized list for that. For implementation, it would require that all articles follow the manual of style. Articles that exist before the implementation of the MoS would be required to adhere in a determined grace period. All articles that do not meet the MoS will face deletion row (articles that exist prior will be immune to this within the grace period determined by administration). A week of an article being in deletion row would result in its deletion. --Lavi I am Dubtiger (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Hmm... I like it. Kind of what I said would happen before this. But you kind of missed the mark. I'm all fine with this, but it won't change how people write articles. It's just another way of organizing crap. We need to clean up. Not reorganize. --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 19:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :It's organizing crap, and cleaning up the crap left over. Some people just put random articles on the wiki and ignore everything else. This is designed to force people to start writing in a proper format and pay attention. A lot of crap is written by people who don't pay attention to the rules and regulations. A lot of those articles are written by people who just put blah on a page then leave, never to return. --Lavi (れび) (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Ah. So we're pushing the rebels in line. --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :Essentially. It's not a really drastic move, but it's subtle enough to start getting articles in line. --Lavi (れび) (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm... The snowball effect. Just a gentle nudge in the right direction. Well, it seems it will work, but it might take some time. When will the commisioned one be ready to publish? --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC) :I was hoping that the administration would agree on a format, since this would be used all over the wiki. --Lavi (れび) (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Well, it just takes the decision of a few admins on a council(I think I already have a few) and it could be declared law. That's not necessarily a good thing, but it's not bad either when you need to get urgent things done. That and the fact that we would agree to pretty much anything that would get us out of this mess, after looking it over of course. --Cold hard steel will eat your soul... 02:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC) About infobox-only articles These should be deleted in 24 hours time. Articles are lengthy descriptions about one topic; it's not about an infobox of tidbits of information. If a topic is extremely brief, it does not need an infobox. A few sentences of description would be sufficient. --Lavi (れび) (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)